21 hours
You must log in or register to comment.
43 minutesCurrent AA, AAA games are operating on subscription models that end up costing the consumer hundreds of dollars. If you’re going to save time/money by using AI and not lower the price, a subset of consumers are going to be justifiably pissed. (Presumably less jobs are created due to the use of AI, so the money I pay isn’t being reinvested into communities via local payroll, and now unemployed artists, writers, and coders are being a drain on tax based safety nets. That AI is a drain on water and electric infrastructure that may impact me directly if I live in the vicinity of a data center. The implications are larger than people not wanting AI in games.) If the AI elements are bad/game breaking, or if they don’t deliver value for price, studios/publishers deserve the hate.
“I filled my game with something people find objectionable and people don’t like it”
wow amazing
- Tollana1234567@lemmy.todayEnglish8 hours
its a stigma now? and not hesitency?, i dont people see it as a taboo. its obnoxious, a plague and polluting to the environment, plus its being weaponized.
- WoodScientist@lemmy.worldEnglish9 hours
Games are ultimately about telling a story, through literal plot narrative or metaphor. I like it when people tell stories. I don’t want to be told a story by a damned machine.
Games are ultimately about enjoying something. There’s lots of games people play that don’t have a story. Or a good one.
When Valve updated the policy for games published on Steam to include disclosure of Ai usage in the games, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney responded in the public that this should not be done and just hurts the industry. It would generate unneeded backslash, as everyone will use Ai in development, according to Tim. Fast forward to today, turns out Epic plans on integrating Ai tools into Unreal Engine 5.
- Paddzr@lemmy.worldEnglish9 hours
You will not find a game engine without some AI tool. Same way as majority of devs will use AI in some capacity.
People only care about AI when presented with it. If non of these games had AI generated visual elements, people would be non the wiser.
You will not find a game engine without some AI tool.
I don’t know where you getting this and spreading misinformation. I think Unreal Engine didn’t have any Ai integration in its entire history. And I’m sure there are game engines without Ai tools integrated by default. I think the Open Source engine Godot in example does not have any of that. If I’m wrong, then please enlighten me. I mean seriously, I want to know if the engine includes Ai tools by default, because I care about.
People only care about AI when presented with it.
So they care about then? Whats really bad is, if companies or developers hide the usage of Ai and only admit using it after they got caught. There are many problems with Ai why people care about this subject. And it should be an informed decision of the buyer, if Ai is used or not or to what extend and what type of Ai. Generating art is not the same as autocompletion of words when programming in example. Using Ai to replace voice actors is also not something we want to see. Ai is trained unethically on data without permission.
If non of these games had AI generated visual elements, people would be non the wiser.
I don’t understand this statement.
- howrar@lemmy.caEnglish8 hours
I think they’re basically saying that if the kitchen staff spits in your food and doesn’t tell you, then you wouldn’t care. It’s only when you find out that you care.
No, that’s wrong analogy. I do care if the staff spits in my food. Because I want food without spit in it. Just because they did not tell me they spit in it, does not mean I wouldn’t care.
- Wrufieotnak@feddit.orgEnglish6 hours
Yes, which is exactly why it is such a good analogy to what the pro AI commentator meant. You care for it and not knowing doesnt mean you don’t care, you just can’t express it without sounding like a lunatic that asks every waiter if they spit in your food
But that is not what has been said. It has been said: “You only start caring, after it is exposed.” And that was what I was responding and arguing with. Here the quote I do not agree with:
People only care about AI when presented with it.
The guy responding then saying what you said is a different person, with its own take.
- Saledovil@sh.itjust.worksEnglish8 hours
Godot is a game engine without any AI tools. At least none that I’m aware of.
Here’s a great browser extension that searched the steam store pages for the AI declaration and pops up a giant warning when there is one and shows you the text or it.
- 3 hours
I apprecite this exists.
That being said, I almost always use the Steam application to browse their storefront, and it doesn’t look like it works in that case. I totally get why it doesn’t, just pointing it out
How is it punishing, if the entire reason of Ai declaration is to be seen? And this is a way for someone who really cares about this to not overlook it by accident. We call this “an informed decision” before buying something. It’s the same reason why developers or publisher have to declare anti cheat usage or third party account requirement or any DRM too.
- DdCno1@beehaw.orgEnglish8 hours
People who really care about it are still going to be exposed to games that contain “undeclared” AI assets.
Yes. Just because some break rules does not mean we should have no rules. I mean obviously there will be some who hide this fact and hope nobody notices it, this is without saying. So I don’t understand why you specifically bring this up.
Edit: Let me make an example. Some games or applications may collect your data. What we are asking is, please tell us, force them to tell us. There might be some who don’t tell us and collect data without we ever noticing. So that would be those people similar to “undeclared” Ai assets.
Yes, because gamers are ever so slightly more tech savvy than your average project manager. They are fully aware that LLMs and diffusion models are just expensive plagiarism engines at best and slop factories the rest of the time.
- terranoid@lemmy.cafeEnglish20 hours
in my experience, a lot of the game devs using AI would normally try to do the art themselves, but think AI is “better” than what they could do… Then they throw together a collage of mismatched art that has no cohesion and call it a day, and get upset when they get called out for it, thinking it’s just some anti AI thing.
People love to take shortcuts then hate when people tell them they sacrificed quality to do it.
- 3 hours
Or they use it to generate placeholder art “so they can get an an ideal on the final product while they’re working on gameplay”.
Super Mario 64’s jumps were figured out with a cube bouncing around in an infinite plane. Their excuse is pure bs, good gameplay is good gameplay
- Fafa@lemmy.worldEnglish7 hours
Im an artist working in games, and I absolutely agree. Lots of people think art in games needs to be “good” without knowing what that actually means. It’s a lot more important that your art is coherent. Having coherent shapes and colors can do a lot. For example, just by choosing a color palette alone, you can create art that works pretty well.
Setting up any limitation will automatically create the coherence for a project. And you can go pretty minimalistic, too. Don’t understand colors and light? Go black and white or sepia. Don’t know about shapes? Use only one or two and design anything around it.
One problem with AI is that it doesn’t use limitation as a tool and isn’t able to contain detail. An indie developer who is inexperienced in art and able to manage their expectations doesn’t have this problem. They can create naturally game art because they only know one way to approach it.
- 7 hours
Even if AI could perfectly produce art for a video game - it would lack a lot of what makes indie games charming.
Part of that discovery process is so valuable to the charm. “I don’t know how to do art! The fuck is this shit! How do I 3d model? I guess that works, it’ll do. Hey actually it’d be kinda cool if I based the general aesthetic of the game around this kinda look.” Boom, unique art emerging from their constraints. They had to work to get there, but their work is infinitely more artful as a result
- FishFace@piefed.socialEnglish5 hours
As a gamer (and an artist in my spare time) I don’t think this is true. I’ve played and loved lots of charming games, but I almost never think about the process as an element of that charm. The charm is in the details of the final product - and a perfect simulation from an AI would (by definition, if it existed) perfectly produce those details.
- 3 hours
To be clear, I’m not saying the process is the charm. I’m saying the process leads to a product that is charming, as a result of having had restrictions.
An AI that could perfectly produce what the dev desires would not lead to this innovation from constraints.
- eestileib@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish20 hours
I love how easily the billionaire sloplords adopt language implying that they are oppressed.
- j5y7@sh.itjust.worksEnglish5 hours
Billionaires get their branding from CumHammer Brand Management:
Wealthy
Handsome
Fun-loving
Victim
- 19 hours
“Data analyst finds that “diarrhea stigma” in bakeries can reduce the number of reviews a cake gets by around 53%–and the reviews it does get are more negative.”
Stop putting diarrhea in the cake and people will both review them more often and review them more highly.
Could it just be AI itself and how bad it sucks instead of “AI stigma”?
- arcine@jlai.luEnglish3 hours
I think the way you phrased it misses the point. It simply does not matter whether AI “art” is good or bad, in a technical sense.
Until AI is an actual person, and can make art reflecting its subjective experience (which would no doubt be very interesting) ; AI “art” is just nothing.
There is no meaning, no story behind it, no other mind to connect with. It was made by a philosophical zombie, a thing that possesses enough appearance of consciousness to seem aware, but no actual subjectivity.
AI “art” could be technically irreproachable, ie “good” and it would still be equivalent to nothing. Even a blank canvas made by a human means worlds more than our current AI could ever make.
And I personally don’t believe AI will ever be a person. But on that, sensible minds may differ.
“Data Analyst Finds that ‘Lazy Awful Game Stigma’ Can Reduce the Number of Reviews a Game Gets by 53% - And the Reviews it Does Get are More Negative”
- terranoid@lemmy.cafeEnglish20 hours
Yep. I’ve seen indie game devs try to push AI art into their products and it never looks good. There is no cohesive design. It looks like badly done collage work with images in different resolutions sometimes. And if they’re that lazy, it usually shows in more ways.
